No written agreement with Germany, No official papers

What I am struggling with here is the fact that an allegation is made that Germany did not sign a "military treaty" with Romania for some kind of reason.
So far, I (and I am sure many others reading this) can not figure out what this "military treaty" should be.

In as far as I can understand, a "military treaty" between two parties should say something like "we are both on the same side" or "if anyone attacks you, I will help you".

On the other hand, MMM seems to imply that such a "military treaty" should read like a Gypsy "arranged marriage" dowry-agreement stipulating the number of troops, tanks, planes, guns, etc, in case of war.

And this is where the problem begins: I cannot find any single-document labelled "treaty" signed by either Romania or Germany with anyone else that reads like such a "menu". There are purchase or lease contracts, joint orders of battle, operational documents that cover all that. However, those were not "treaties" and were not signed by the leaders.

MMM, you said above that I should look at the "military treaties" signed by Romania after 1916. I am struggling with that also. Please point out to me what "military treaties" you are referring to.

Yes, in the communist times, the truth was well hidden. In fact, I was never taught anything meaningful about WW2 in school. All we were taught started with 23rd of August 1944, and the Germans were portrayed as occupiers rather than allies. The communists WANTED everyone to believe that Romania was never allied with Germany. In those days, it was quite easy to push such an agenda, because many were fed their information by the state-controlled media, no one had access to information to the same extent as we do today (access to books and Internet) and in the context of fear and distrust, such ignorance was preferred and so much easier to cultivate and maintain. Nowadays though, it is harder to push such "misinformation", as it is clearly evident here.

The truth of the matter that between the Tripartite Pact, the joint operation documentation, contracts, agreements, etc, there is a mountain of paperwork between Romania and Germany. Saying that the absence of some whimsically and capriciously defined document proves that there was no legally defined relationship between the two is plain silly.

Radu

Putting aside the allegations you made on me (I don't feel so influenced by the "ancient" ideas), shouldn't you take a closer look at the armistice agreement made by Romania with SU, signed on 12.09.1944? It is clear in that case who's the Gypsy daughter and who's the son - the only question remaining is "Where are the bloodied sheets?", because Romania, after more than three years of fighting against the USSR, was no more virgin
Also, you might want to check the treaties signed in the 1920's with Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia ("Mica Înţelegere"): although ineffective, they DID have all the arrangements of a Gypsy Party (because a wedding with three partners is highly unusual).
PS: as you can see, I can make a mockery of it as well, but it's beside the point.
REGARDLESS WHAT YOU NAME IT, TREATY OR MILITARY AGREEMENT OR "cockamamey clueless flip floppery" DOCUMENT - WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE PRIOR TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE GERMAN TROOPS IN ROMANIA.That's why we were considered an "occupied country" - and not only by the communists, but by the USA as well! Keep on reading what was written after 1990...
PPS: Sorry for yelling

[edited by admin]

I am going to take Victor's advice.

I strongly dislike the racist undertones of your Gypsy rant - that rant is totally unnecessary. My history teacher used to say that if one wants to be witty , one must be witty either with very intelligent people or with very close friends. She was proven right yet again.
When I used the word Gypsy, it was in the context of the "dowry" related to an "arranged marriage". Instead of Gypsy, think of an Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Tibetan, Chinese or any other group of people that "arrange marriages". The nationality is irrelevant - what matters is the "dowry" (equipment, troops put forward by the respective nations) and the "arranged marriage" (alliance between the respective nations). You took all of that out of the context and turned it into a distasteful rant.

I am interested in this discussion, but only as long as we can discuss about it. If it is just a matter of "who shouts more abuse at the other" and "who can prove that the other is an idiot", I am out. That is not the way to learn about history.

I repeat my previous questions:
What is a "military treaty"?
Who did Germany have such a "military treaty" with?
Who did Romania have such a "military treaty" with?

Others and I already put answers forward. You did not. Other than shouting, going on rants and being vague, do you actually have any answers to those questions?

Radu

Supposedly...
1. A military treaty is an agreement between two or more parties (states or alliances) which regulates the terms of military cooperation - and of course it should be as precise and detailed as possible.
2. Nobody, except Italy (AFAIK)
3. None in use in 1940, after the dismissal of Czechoslovakia and the defeat of France.
To make it clear, I have nothing against the Gypsy people (nothing to put in discussion, anyway) but I wanted to ridiculize your illl-found analogy - every treaty has to comprise many more aspects than a wedding!
PS: OK, you took the advice; what have you done with it? Set it free again...

Your reply No. 1) Please give an example of a "military treaty" that, in your defintiion, is an agreement between two or more parties (states or alliances) which regulates the terms of military cooperation - and of course it should be as precise and detailed as possible. Even though you described the Tripartite PAct, you said that the Tripartite Pact is not "it". Please give an exmaple of "it".

I am not aware of any such "military treaty" going into such detail in force between any nations at the time when the German troops arrived in Romania.

Your reply No. 2) The treaty that Germany had with Italy did not go into that kind of detail that you demand. It is not different in structure, purpose and stipulations from the Tripartite Pact.

Your reply No. 3) The Little Entente that did not go into that kind of detail that you demand. It is not different in structure, purpose and stipulations from the Tripartite Pact.

In October 1940, Antonescu publicly invited a German Mission to come to Romania in order to train the Romanian troops. That means that when the first Germans arrived, they did so as invited guests, not invaders. A few weeks after they arrived, he signed the Tripartite Pact, after which any German troops that arrived did so as allies for the purposes of Operation Barbarossa and all that followed. All of those oprations are based on known operational military documents. In any case, considering the way that the Germans invaded other countries, it is not really possible to say that the Germans came as invaders to Romania.
An Italian Military Mission also arrived in late 1940. Did Romania need to sign a "military treaty" with Italy? Or did Italy invade Romania too?

Radu

Antonescu told the Germans that he wanted a German military mission and equipment. Hitler responded by dispatching a General Staff member to talk the details with Antonescu. Antonescu presented him with his list of conditions or demands. OKW and the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs then prepared a list of rules for the military mission, what we would call a status of forces agreement today. On September 20 the German government then notified the Romanian governmnet that it agrees with those conditions.

I know that; I also have the documents in cause, but we stil talk about foreign soldiers in times of war; remember that in 1939 we also asked (however, half-hearted) for a French military mission - which they (the French High Command) considered as unnecesary.

But, had the French mission arrived as requested, would that have meant that Romania was invaded by France?

Radu

I'm sure there would have been a few oppinions in that sense (mainly the legionnaire movement). However, France wasn't Germany - and this was clearly seen at 23.08.1944, when we switched sides quite easy, because we had no real comradry with Wehrmacht. And we did have treaties with France - the collective security system whose pillar was Titulescu.
PS also the communists (all ten of them ) could have objected...

This post has been edited by MMM on March 16, 2009 08:14 pm

Their war was not against Romania and they did not invade this country. Romania was an occupied country only for those that did not agree with the increasingly close Romanian-German relations. Just as there are some people today that consider that the US is occupying Romania.

THAT I didn't know... Still, it's not to compare ww2 with the today's situation.

And this may be the crux of the issue here...
When you asked the original question, were you looking for facts of opinions?
Radu

Maybe unknown facts, maybe interesting oppinions... I wasn't looking for a fight, anyway! (And that's what I got )

I think that the fight started when facts were not acknowledged and opinions were pushed beyond the limits of common sense. On both sides.
Radu

I'll take that as a peace offer, then!